What to do, what to say (or change)?

The way that movies are rated is quite interesting, but I think that the way that the ratings are meant to be used is even more interesting. Here's the thing, I think that most of the people who pay any attention to the movie ratings (me included) (and excluding people outside of the US, because it is the Motion Picture Association of America) expect that the ratings are to give us an idea of what's contained in the movie (violence, language, etc.).

The ratings, though, are to inform movie-goers of who they should bring with them to the movie, not to tell what people can expect once they get to the movie.
A suggestion that I have to solve this is to make the ratings tell the contents of the movie. The filmmakers would still be able to choose what he or she puts in the movie, but they would be obligated to disclose the content of the movie, letting the people know what kind of violence is in the movie, or how much hard language is in it as well.

Movies are not simply rated too lightly all of the time. Sometimes they're even rated too heavily, simply because of one small word or kick that doesn't have anything to do with the movie many times. Many R-rated movies had a lot of historical foundation and are very educational movies, and because of gory reality they are rated R.

This is the biggest suggestion I can give for the MPAA, to include the content of the movie, and to rate it according to that. I think that would fix a lot of the frustration with movies.

Why all the fuss? A Movie Jury

So if the ratings system keeps movies in check and keeps movie-goers informed, why is there such a stink about it? Why do so many people complain that it isn't as effective now with the changes that we've seen in society? It seems to me that if there are so many people commenting on and criticizing the current system, there must be something wrong, right?

Well, that's a call that everyone can make for themselves, especially since this blog is not going to change the world and cause thousands of people to storm the MPAA and demand change. The reason that I say that it's up to each person to decide for themselves is because of the way that I see the system.

The way that it all works is that there is a board of 8-13 people, parents from around the nation who have no connection with the movie industry (the raters on the board become part of the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA). They watch the movies and decide the best ratings, based on certain requirements. This seems logical, seeing as parents are mostly the ones who are concerned about the ratings.

What comes to mind when thinking about this is a movie jury (and this is the way that I see it). The case and verdict (the rating) are ultimately decided by the jury (the ratings board), then presented to the judge (the MPAA), and finally told to the defendant (the filmmaker). A court jury, though, makes one decision out of two options, and the "movie jury" makes one decision out of five options.

Five is really not that many, but there is one key difference between the jury and our "movie jury." The court jury is working under strict guidelines set by the law, guidelines that MUST be followed under penalty of the law. The line between guilty and not guilty is many times a very fine one, but it is more or less clearly defined. The lines between the options for the movie jury (between the ratings), though, have become very blurred especially in the last few years.

Sometimes juries make mistakes and we can't blame them for that, and it's the same with the ratings board. They can't be blamed for the blurred lines of decision, but the lines are blurred nonetheless. So the change doesn't necessarily need to be made in the system, but in the guidelines of the system and their implementations. A jury is making a big decision, but because they have so much information and so many guidelines, they can take the blame for a poor decision. The movie jury has a big decision to make, but they have limited guidelines and so don't seem so blamable.

The board isn't to blame, they are just the decision-makers who have to base their decisions on blurry guidelines. The ratings are what need to be changed.

Reasoning Behind It

Okay. So now that we got the history behind us, the fun part is next. Though this is the part that could actually be more difficult to discuss. Simply because from here on out, most of what I will say will be opinions and personal commentary, which is usually one-sided and harder to substantiate, especially about a topic like this one.

So at first glance, the philosophy of the ratings system seems to be to provide a way for everyone, especially parents, to gauge what quality a movie is, and what they should be aware of in choosing the movie. That seems to be the consensus at second glance, too. And at third glance, and so on.

In my opinion, the ratings have proven to be helpful in choosing movies and gauging quality. We generally know the different requirements of the ratings and what will be in the movie if it's PG compared to R. So the basic principle makes sense, but really in the last years especially the ratings have started to become somewhat blended together so that there is gray area left between each one. This isn't so apparent between G and PG movies, but I think that between PG-13 and R-rated movies the line is becoming increasingly blurry. As well, it seems that the requirements of a PG-13 movie are seeming to become more relaxed than before, and things are passing into these movies that shouldn't be there.

So the philosophy behind the ratings system is a very good one. Ideally, it should keeps movie producers and the movie's content in check. At the same time it is supposed provide a system that parents and normal people can look at and make educated entertainment choices.

Now whether or not this is actually what is happening is up for debate, but that still has yet to be decided. And talked about in future posts.